Presumption of Innocence, Rule of Law and the Supremacy of the Department of Justice

Justice cannot be achieved by committing another injustice. Every man is entitled to due process, to be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. We are equal before the eyes of the law regardless of whether you are rich or poor, famous or not. The law applies to all. The constitutional guarantee covers everyone. No exception. The former president is entitled to the same protection of the constitution precisely that’s why we have the bill of rights so we can protect ourselves from the possible abuse by the state in the exercise of its powers. The state is too huge an opponent. It has the Police, the Armed Forces and all the agencies of the government under its disposal to prosecute and or persecute a person. And, as a people what do we have? Just the words inscribed in the 1987 constitution. To make sure that our rights are protected, we have the courts that will ensure that due process is observed.

It’s no less than the 1987 Constitution that says, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved…” And who will decide whether the accused is guilty of the crime as charged? It’s the court(s). A person cannot and should not be convicted by public opinion. The general public forms its opinion based on the news, on what they’ve heard on the radio, watched on television or read on-line. The media not only delivers news but sometimes biased opinions, as well. The public should exercise extra-caution when presented with reports. To allow the public to use these information(s) to decide on the guilt of the accused without the benefit of trial is a red-carpet entrance to a dungeon of injustice.

In criminal cases, the quantum of evidence required is “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. This is enough to show how important right to life, liberty or property is. It requires the state to present damning evidence to buttress or overthrow presumption of innocence. It has the burden of proof. In a democratic country, conviction is rendered by the courts - real Courts. Not Kangaroo Courts. Trial is conducted inside the courts. Not outside. If guilt is to be proven by the opinion of the public, might as well remove the courts and conduct survey instead and whoever gets the 50% and 1 of the votes should be hanged to death. But that’s not how it works. Due to the presumption of innocence and due process requirements and the importance of life, presentation of evidence is required, careful technical evaluation of these evidence have to be observed, and decisions have to be based on the facts of the case, existing jurisprudence and the controlling laws at the time when the alleged crime was committed. We should all remember that we were not there when the alleged offense was committed. That’s why a more detailed presentation and careful assessment of facts, in its totality, have to be done.

I know that probably 80%, or perhaps 99%, of the Filipino people believe that CGMA is probably (others are even so convinced as if they were all there when the alleged crime was committed) guilty of the crime and as such should languish in jail but this does not change the fact that she too is a Filipino entitled to the same protection of our laws. We cannot take a short-cut just so our version of justice is served. The end does not justify the means. While it may be true that our laws require a speedy trial but it doesn’t mean [that] we skip the essentials. It doesn’t follow that we trample upon the rights of the accused. It results to travesty of justice.  I think the best test to find out whether the act is JUST is to ask ourselves this simple question, IF IT WAS I IN HER PLACE ACCUSED OF THE SAME CRIME AND I TOO BELIEVE THAT AM NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME THEY CLAIMED I HAVE COMMITTED, SHOULD I JUST GO TO JAIL DIRECTLY WITHOUT A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE THE GENERAL PUBLIC ABHOR MY VERY EXISTENCE?????? If you honestly believe that it’s okay then go ahead. Hang yourself. Be my guest. I commit myself to provide you a happy-meal before you do it.

What I am asking is for all parties to observe the RULE OF LAW, for after all, ours is a government of laws and not of men. The presence of the courts and our obedience to its order on matters that involve the law are requirements sine qua non for our very survival. This separates us from the barbarians. This makes us, among other things, a civilized society. A single defiance, more so if it is attended with malicious intent, signals an era of chaos and the society’s transformation to a state of anarchy. What Secretary De Lima did was not just an ordinary defiance. It was tainted with bad faith, an insult to the Supreme Court and its processes and therefore she should be reminded that she is not above the law. If possible, she should be sent back to San Beda Law School and be taught once more that the Department of Justice is not a co-equal branch of the Supreme Court and neither is it superior than the SUPREME Court. It may be true that majority of the people favor her defiance, but it does not make it right. Her reasoning that she cannot implement the TRO issued by the HIGHEST Court because of its irregularity is actually in the DISSENT of the five Associate Justices but eight says otherwise. So, who should we follow, the 8 or the 5 justices? Do we need a scientific calculator to do that? Her reasoning is disturbing. Looking at her while spewing those words made me ask myself, is she delusional or just patently incompetent? She should not be confirmed by the Senate. 

On a question of law, only one has the final say. It is our courts. No matter how irregular it may seem to one, the fact remains that he has to live with it. This very institution was created for a grand, noble and worthwhile purpose. Along with the other two branches of government, the Courts will serve as our last bastion. When Congress enacts bad laws and the executive abuse its powers in the execution of laws, we have the courts to turn to and ask for protection. While it may be true that the state has the Police, the Armed Forces and other agencies of the government under its disposal, and we, as a people – only the words of the Constitution, we should fear not for the gavel of justice can use these same words to hammer down, pound back and remind the government that SOVEREIGNTY resides in the people and the state exists to serve and protect them.